LOVEEN BABU VUPPALA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 have been drafted specifically to avoid the burden of double taxation. 7. In the present case, even though the petitioner had not uploaded Form-67 while filing return of tax, later he uploaded the same with delay and that too due to Covid out break he was not able

AMITH VISHNAV GUDIMELLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

202/- and paid tax in US of Rs.5,55,111/-. After returning to India, the assessee was employed with Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., and earned salary income Rs.8,83,728/-in India during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. The assessee duly reported the aggregate salary income earned both in USA and in India under

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.432/Hyd/2025 4 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Sarvotham Care, having income from two units, one being a solar power generation unit eligible for deduction under section 80IA

SRINIVAS EMMADI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

202/- towards transport charges and hamali charges are\nwithout property verification and therefore the same is liable to be\ndeleted.\n7. Any other ground will be raised at the time of hearing.\"\nITA No.32/Hyd/2024 | 3\n3.\nAt the outset, it was observed that, there is a delay of 144 days\nin filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. In support

NEELAKANTA REDDY MUDDAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-11(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Neelakanta Reddy Muddam V Ito,Ward-11(1) F.No.202, 2Nd Floor S. Room No.1006, Kunapa Reddy’S Castle Singature Towers Towers, Anjaneya Nagar, Opp. Botanical Garden Moosapet, Kothaguda Hyderabad-522 002 Hyderabad-500 084

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. In the present case, ld.CIT(A) had dismiss the appeal of the assessee on account of nonappearance and no finding were recorded on merit . It was prayed that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

202 days delay in filing before the ITAT. In this connection, the assessee has filed a petition for :- 2 -: ITA No. 1487 & 2100/Hyd/2018 M/s Madhucon Toll Highways Ltd., Hyd. condonation of delay along with an affidavit, wherein, it was affirmed that since the Pr. CIT(A)’s order misplaced by one of its staff and tracing out the same caused

MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

202 days delay in filing before the ITAT. In this connection, the assessee has filed a petition for :- 2 -: ITA No. 1487 & 2100/Hyd/2018 M/s Madhucon Toll Highways Ltd., Hyd. condonation of delay along with an affidavit, wherein, it was affirmed that since the Pr. CIT(A)’s order misplaced by one of its staff and tracing out the same caused

MALIHA SYEDA,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

202, [Int. Taxn.)-2, Aaykar 8-2-601/B/GP, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Bhawan, Opposite LB Khairatabad, Banjara vs. Statidum, Basheerbagh, Hills S.O. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. PIN – 500 004 PAN EIYPS0419F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 ORDER PER BENCH

MALIHA SYEDA,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

202, [Int. Taxn.)-2, Aaykar 8-2-601/B/GP, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Bhawan, Opposite LB Khairatabad, Banjara vs. Statidum, Basheerbagh, Hills S.O. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. PIN – 500 004 PAN EIYPS0419F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 ORDER PER BENCH

MALIHA SYEDA,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

202, [Int. Taxn.)-2, Aaykar 8-2-601/B/GP, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Bhawan, Opposite LB Khairatabad, Banjara vs. Statidum, Basheerbagh, Hills S.O. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. PIN – 500 004 PAN EIYPS0419F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 ORDER PER BENCH

MALIHA SYEDA,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

202, [Int. Taxn.)-2, Aaykar 8-2-601/B/GP, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Bhawan, Opposite LB Khairatabad, Banjara vs. Statidum, Basheerbagh, Hills S.O. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. PIN – 500 004 PAN EIYPS0419F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 ORDER PER BENCH

GOPIKISHAN PALLOD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Gopikishan Pallod Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7 (1) Pan:Aanpp8665K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Parameshwar G. Chintakula राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ashutosh Pradhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/12/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2023-24. 2. There Is A Delay Of 29 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Explained The Reasons For Such Delay In Filing The Appeal. After Considering The Explanation Of The Assessee, We Condone The Delay Of 29 Days In Filing The Present Appeal & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

condone the delay of 29 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. Page 1 of 8 ITA No 568 of 2025 Gopikishan Pallod 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual carrying on the business of retail trading of electronic appliances in the trade name of M/s. Keerti Electron

VITHALDAS AND COMPANY ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6(1, HYDERABAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay of 55 is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. Coming to the assessee’s twin substantive grounds inter alia challenging validity of reopening as well as both the lower authorities’ action treating it’s purchases

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)., HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KSK ENERGY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. As the grounds are common in all these appeals, but the financial results are different in all the above assessment years . For the sake and brevity